U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
November 2011, NCJ 236245
Identity Theft Reported by Households, 2005-2010
Lynn Langton, BJS Statistician
-------------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the
tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in
spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS
website at:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2207.
This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be
available. To view a list of all reports in the series go to
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=60
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, 7.0% of households in the United States, or about
8.6 million households, had at least one member age 12 or
older who experienced one or more types of identity theft
victimization (figure 1). This percentage was similar to the
7.3% of households that experienced identity theft in 2009.
However, it represented an increase from the 5.5% of
households, or 6.4 million households, that were victims of
one or more types of identity theft in 2005.
The increase in identity theft victimization from 2005 to
2010 was largely attributable to an increase in the misuse or
attempted misuse of existing credit card accounts. During
this period, the percentage of households that experienced
the misuse of an existing credit card account increased by
about 50%, from 2.5% to 3.8%. The percentage of households
that experienced the misuse of personal information to open a
new account or for another fraudulent purpose declined by
about 30%, from 0.9% in 2005 to 0.6% in 2010.
This data brief presents data on identity theft victimization
from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). It
primarily focuses on changes in the nature of identity theft
victimization and the characteristics of households with at
least one member who was a victim from 2005 to 2010. Annual
estimates for 2008 are not included because only 6 months of
household identity theft data were collected that year.
Identity theft is defined as the unauthorized use or
attempted misuse of an existing credit card or other existing
account, the misuse of personal information to open a new
account or for another fraudulent purpose, or a combination
of these types of misuse.
From 2005 to 2010, most households victimized by identity
theft experienced the misuse of an existing credit card
account
Among households in which at least one member experienced one
or more types of identity theft, 64.1% experienced the misuse
or attempted misuse of an existing credit card account in
2010 (figure 2). From 2005 to 2010, the misuse of an existing
credit card account was the fastest growing type of identity
theft, with the number of victimized households increasing
from about 3.6 million (56.3% of victimized households) in
2005 to 5.5 million (64.1% of victimized households) in 2010.
The number of households that experienced the misuse of an
existing account other than a credit card account, such as a
banking, savings, or Paypal account, increased from about 2.3
million in 2005 to 3.0 million in 2010 (not shown in a
table). However, there was no measureable change in the
percentage of victimized households that experienced the
misuse of another existing account from 2005 to 2010 (about
35%). The percentage of victimizations involving the misuse
of personal information declined during this time, from 23.2%
in 2005 to 14.2% in 2010.
Identity theft victimization increased among households in
urban and suburban areas from 2005 to 2010
Regardless of the age of the head of household, the
percentage of households victimized by identity theft was
higher in 2010 than in 2005 (table 1). In both years,
households headed by a person age 65 or older had the lowest
rate of identity theft victimization compared to households
headed by persons in any age category under 65.
From 2005 to 2010, the percentage of households that
experienced identity theft increased among non-Hispanic white
and Asian-headed households, and Hispanic-headed households.
The percentage of victimized households among non-Hispanic
black and Indian-headed households, as well as those headed
by non-Hispanic persons of two or more races, was similar in
2005 and 2010.
The percentage of households that experienced identity theft
increased from 2005 to 2010, regardless of the marital status
of the head of household. In both years, a higher percentage
of households with a married head of household experienced
identity theft victimization compared to households with a
non-married head.
From 2005 to 2010, the percentage of households that
experienced identity theft increased among households with an
income of $75,000 or more and among households in the
unreported income category (table 2). The percentage of
victimized households increased slightly among households
with incomes of $7,500 to $14,999, $35,000 to $49,999, and
$50,000 to $74,999. There was no measurable change in the
percentage of households that experienced identity theft
among those in the lowest income bracket or those that made
$15,000 to $24,999 or $25,000 to $34,999. In 2010, a higher
percentage of households with an income of $75,000
experienced identity theft victimization compared to
households in lower income brackets.
The percentage of households in urban and suburban areas with
at least one member who experienced identity theft increased
from 2005 to 2010. However, the percentage of households in
rural areas that experienced identity theft (3.9%) was the
same in 2005 and 2010.
Regardless of the head of household characteristics,
increases in household identity theft between 2005 and 2010
can be primarily attributed to increases in the misuse of
existing credit card accounts (not shown in a table). The
general patterns of identity theft victimization by head of
household characteristics may be related to exposure and
opportunities for victimization. For example, a married head
of household suggests at least two adults in the household,
which could mean more opportunity for victimization, compared
to a household with one non-married adult. Additionally, the
higher percentage of households in the top income category
that experienced identity theft victimization may be related
to these households having a greater number of banking
accounts, credit card accounts, or other types of accounts
compared to lower income households, thus increasing the
opportunity that an account could be misused. Therefore, many
of the variables examined in this report may be related to
one another and to other variables not included in the
analyses or the survey.
A lower percentage of households experienced direct financial
loss from identity theft in 2010 compared to 2005
From 2005 to 2010, the percentage of all households with one
or more type of identity theft that suffered no direct
financial loss increased from 18.5% to 23.7% (table 3). After
adjusting for inflation, among the households that lost $1 or
more, the total average financial loss did not change from
2005 to 2010. This suggests that for households that
experienced a loss, the amount of loss was comparable in each
year.
In 2010, over half of households (50.8%) that experienced the
misuse of personal information reported no direct financial
loss from the misuse at the time of the survey interview.
Households that did experience a financial loss of $1 or more
resulting from the misuse of personal information had higher
average ($13,160) and median ($800) losses than households
that experienced other types of identity theft.
In 2010, households reported a total financial loss of
approximately $13.3 billion (table 4). While 9.0% of
victimized households experienced the misuse of personal
information, this form of misuse accounted for 29.4% of the
total direct financial loss in 2010. In contrast, the misuse
of existing credits cards accounted for 54.0% of identity
theft victimizations and 31.8% of the total direct financial
loss.
Methodology
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual
data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS collects
information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to
the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally
representative sample of U.S. households. Survey results are
based on data gathered from residents living throughout the
United States, including persons living in group quarters,
such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group
dwellings. The survey excludes the homeless, Armed Forces
personnel living in military barracks, and persons living in
an institutional setting, such as a correctional or hospital
facility. For more detail, see Criminal Victimization in the
United States, Statistical Tables, Methodology on the BJS
website at http://www.bjs.gov.
Beginning in July 2004, questions were added to the NCVS to
provide ongoing estimates of identity theft victimization.
NCVS household identity theft data are available for July
through December of 2004, a full year in 2005 and 2007, July
through December of 2008, and a full year in 2009 and 2010.
During the first six months of 2008, households were
administered a supplemental NCVS survey on identity theft
that replaced the regular households NCVS questions during
that period. (See Victims of Identity Theft, 2008, BJS Web,
NCJ 231680 for data from the supplemental identity theft
survey.) Because a full year of household identity theft data
are not available for 2004 or 2008, these years are not
included in this data brief.
Technical Notes
Standard error computations
When national estimates are derived from a sample rather than
the entire population, as is the case with the NCVS, caution
must be used when drawing conclusions about the size of one
population estimate in comparison to another or about whether
a time series of population estimates is changing. Although
one estimate may differ in absolute terms from another, they
may not be different statistically because estimates based on
responses from a sample of the population each have some
degree of sampling error. The sampling error, or margin of
error, of an estimate depends on several factors, including
the amount of variation in the responses, the size and
representativeness of the sample, and the size of the
subgroup for which the estimate is computed.
One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate
is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one
estimate to the next. In general, an estimate with a smaller
standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the
true value than an estimate with a larger standard error.
Estimates with relatively large standard errors are
associated with less precision and reliability and should be
interpreted with caution.
The coefficient of variation (CV) is a measure of an
estimate's reliability. The CV is the ratio of the standard
error to the estimate. In this report, the CV was calculated
for all estimates, and in cases where the CV was greater than
25%, the estimate was noted with a "!" symbol (interpret data
with caution, coefficient of variation exceeds 25%). In cases
where the CV was greater than 50%, the estimate was
determined not to meet reporting standards, noted with a "/"
symbol, and suppressed.
A statistical test is used to determine whether differences
in means or percentages are statistically significant once
sampling error is taken into account. Comparisons made in the
text were tested for statistical significance at the p < .05
level to ensure that the differences were larger than might
be expected due to sampling variation. Significance testing
calculations were conducted at the Bureau of Justice
Statistics using statistical programs developed specifically
for the NCVS by the U.S. Census Bureau. These programs take
into consideration many aspects of the complex NCVS sample
design when calculating estimates. Standard errors for
average annual estimates were calculated based on the ratio
of the sums of victimizations and respondents across years.
Comparing financial loss in 2005 and 2010
In 2008, the household identity theft questions pertaining to
financial loss were changed. From 2004 to 2007, the amount of
financial loss that a respondent could report was capped at
$99,996. Beginning with the 2008 data collection, the cap was
increased to allow respondents to report up to $999,996 in
direct financial losses resulting from identity theft
victimization. Because of this change, it is not possible to
compare total financial losses in 2005 with total financial
losses in 2010. Any increase from 2005 to 2010 could be
attributed to either actual loss increases or to increases in
the amount of loss respondents were allowed to report.
Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006
Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have affected
the crime estimates for that year to an extent that they were
not comparable to estimates from other years. Evaluation of
2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted by BJS and the
Census Bureau found a high degree of confidence that
estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 are consistent with
and comparable to estimates for 2005 and previous years. The
reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006, BJS Web, NCJ 219413;
Criminal Victimization, 2007, BJS Web, NCJ 224390; Criminal
Victimization, 2008, BJS Web, NCJ 227777; Criminal
Victimization, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231327; and Criminal
Victimization, 2010, BJS Web, NCJ 235508, are available on
the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Justice Programs * Innovation * Partnerships *
Safer Neighborhoods * http://www.ojp.gov
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of
the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.
This report was written by BJS statistician Lynn Langton.
Erika Harrell verified the report.
Jill Thomas edited the report, Barbara Quinn produced the
report, and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for final
printing under the supervision of Doris J. James.
November 2011, NCJ 236245
The full text of each report is available in PDF and ASCII
formats on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov. Tables are also
available in PDF and CSV formats. Related datasets are made
available on the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
website at
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/index.jsp.
-------------------------------------------------------------
11/21/2011/TLD/ 11:15 a.m.